Nothing wrong with C++ per se, if you're a C++ programmer.
First, I assume this is a musl thread, so I'm assuming C++ people might not be interested in it in the first place (I'd be surprised if C++ communities discuss the bloat of glibc let alone seeking its minimal C alternatives like musl instead of going for C++ solutions like boost and what not).
Second, having hung around people who discuss the bloat of glibc, and strive for white-box and minimalism, of which musl is a result (this includes, but not limited to, communities like suckless, and cat-v.org), speaking of musl and clang in the same line would be odd at the least, considering clang is ~600k+ lines of C/C++, when there is a C-only tcc compiler at ~60k+, so it's likely clang is doing something (a lot of things) that C programmers have no interest in.
Although I should admit these minimalist C communities might not have a good opinion of Python either (that's one of my personal interests).
Part of those 600k lines of code come in the form of various things that tcc doesn't do -- things like loop unrolling, support for SSE, support for architectures other than intel-based, support C11, etc. So, you end up with a compiler that is significantly slower and less useful than the clang suite. So while there are things the C community wouldn't support, like other languages, there are quite a few things that the C community would consider vital these days.
I'm not sure how well maintained those backends are, and I've read TCC isn't really stable enough to use in production, between the incomplete x64 backend and just general bugs... Solving those may yet push TCC a fair bit beyond 60k LOC.
Clang itself is ~400k once you exclude things like the static analyzer and all the various tooling built on top of it that's shipped with clang. Either way, that number is sort of a drop in the bucket compared to LLVM. LLVM is millions of lines of code, very little of which could be dropped simply by only supporting C. Even a C-only programmer wants things like optimization passes and backends for every platform they plan on running on.
That's one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that Clang/LLVM are the open source compiler that aren't under the GPL and musl is the open source libc that isn't under the GPL.
First, I assume this is a musl thread, so I'm assuming C++ people might not be interested in it in the first place (I'd be surprised if C++ communities discuss the bloat of glibc let alone seeking its minimal C alternatives like musl instead of going for C++ solutions like boost and what not).
Second, having hung around people who discuss the bloat of glibc, and strive for white-box and minimalism, of which musl is a result (this includes, but not limited to, communities like suckless, and cat-v.org), speaking of musl and clang in the same line would be odd at the least, considering clang is ~600k+ lines of C/C++, when there is a C-only tcc compiler at ~60k+, so it's likely clang is doing something (a lot of things) that C programmers have no interest in.
Although I should admit these minimalist C communities might not have a good opinion of Python either (that's one of my personal interests).